Re: jpeg quality factor.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Chris Mohler wrote:

> I understand that JPEG drops data.  My point: in most applications,
> 'save' means "save your data".  In the image editing world, 'save' has
> come to mean "save as much data as you want given the limitations of
> the format - here are (or might be) some options".

One view is that by the choice of JPEG as a file format, the user
has already stated that their goal for this image is moderate file
size over lossless storage. An application could therefore be considered
to be behaving reasonably in processing such a file, if it introduced
no noticeable additional degradation in quality. Since by the choice of the
JPEG format image information has already been thrown away, a small additional
loss of information is unlikely to be noticeable (ie. retaining similar or better
quantization tables) and is consistent with the users implicit goals.

Defaulting to a lossless format when the original file is a JPEG could
be seen as poor application behaviour, since it is contradicting the users
implicit preferences.

Graeme Gill.

_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Index of Archives]     [Video For Linux]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [gtk]     [GIMP for Windows]     [KDE]     [GEGL]     [Gimp's Home]     [Gimp on GUI]     [Gimp on Windows]     [Steve's Art]

  Powered by Linux